What are "Human Rights" and where do they come from?

stevil said:

Perhaps the biblical term means something to the exclusive club of Christians, it is irrelevant to a wider group of people including non Christians.

Click to expand...

Not only Christians, but also Jews and Muslims.

TasteForTruth said:

I am seeking to understand your position. What I have written is offered genuinely. But if you are not keen on discussing it, I am fine with that.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Again, morality and justification for laws are two separate topics. Just because something is immoral doesn't mean it's illegal. Likewise just because something is legal doesn't make it moral.

Making laws is largely a utilitarian exercise. The best explanation is John Rawls veil of ignorance idea. If you are not familiar with it, essentially you would be tasked with creating the laws for a society without knowing what place in that society you will hold.

For example, you wouldn't want to create a society like Nazi Germany, because you might wind up being one of the Jews in it. You wouldn't want a society like Saudi Arabia because you might wind up not being a Muslim in it. You wouldn't want a society like the United States, because you could wind up being transgendered, etc.

The result of blinding yourself to what role you play in that society will create a set of laws designed to be as equitable as possible to everyone, while putting reasonable restrictions in place that will safeguard as many people as possible.

If a law conforms to that method of thinking, I would call it a just one. If (for example) a law is designed to suppress a certain group of people, I would call it unjust.

TasteForTruth said:

I'm not talking about a man on death row. I'm talking about you, personally. You have committed no crime, but society has either decreed that you die ouright, or that you surrender your life to the state. Do you believe that, under those circumstances, you have a right to live?

Click to expand...

By definition, I would not have a right to life. That doesn't mean the stripping of my right to life is a just act though, as I explained above.

TasteForTruth said:

Me? Depends on the inmate. Those who actually committed murder, no; those there through error, yes.

Click to expand...

Interesting, so you yourself believe that society is capable of stripping someone's right to life.

Dave-W said:

Not only Christians, but also Jews and Muslims.

Click to expand...

OK, really?

I've never been a Christian, so don't really know some things that you might consider basic Christian knowledge.
I'm trying not to be antagonistic, and please don't read my basic questions as being sarcastic or baiting.

I understand there are a great many similarities between Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions.
Do they all read the Old Testament or do they read different versions of it?
Is the Torah, the Quran and the New Testament their successors to the old testament?
So they all hold the Old Testament as a sacred set of books and they also hold their newer books as sacred also, but put more credence into the newer books???

I do understand that individually you guys make up huge numbers and combined a massive number.
But also please recognise that on a global perspective and within countries which are inclusive of many different people from different cultures, religions, non religions etc that definitions of words such as "murder" must have a meaning that is relevant to everyone.

Not being from any of the Abrahamic religions I have never read those scriptures and I have never been taught your word definitions, I am wholeheartedly unfamiliar with those definitions.

This is sometimes what makes it difficult for a religious person and a non religious person to dialogue, because since we use different definitions to words, it sounds like we are talking the same language but actually we are likely talking past each other and misunderstanding each other's position because those same words have different meanings to each of us.

stevil said:

OK, really?

I've never been a Christian, so don't really know some things that you might consider basic Christian knowledge.
I'm trying not to be antagonistic, and please don't read my basic questions as being sarcastic or baiting.

I understand there are a great many similarities between Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions.
Do they all read the Old Testament or do they read different versions of it?
Is the Torah, the Quran and the New Testament their successors to the old testament?
So they all hold the Old Testament as a sacred set of books and they also hold their newer books as sacred also, but put more credence into the newer books???

I do understand that individually you guys make up huge numbers and combined a massive number.
But also please recognise that on a global perspective and within countries which are inclusive of many different people from different cultures, religions, non religions etc that definitions of words such as "murder" must have a meaning that is relevant to everyone.

Not being from any of the Abrahamic religions I have never read those scriptures and I have never been taught your word definitions, I am wholeheartedly unfamiliar with those definitions.

This is sometimes what makes it difficult for a religious person and a non religious person to dialogue, because since we use different definitions to words, it sounds like we are talking the same language but actually we are likely talking past each other and misunderstanding each other's position because those same words have different meanings to each of us.

Click to expand...

Jews hold the Old Testament as sacred scripture, and disregard the New Testament and the Koran.

Christians hold the Old and New testaments as sacred scripture, attribute equal authority to them, although the OT is interpreted in light of the NT. Various denominations have slight differences in which books make up the canon. Christians also disregard the Koran.

Muslims hold the Koran as the definitive revelation. They follow the Old and New Testaments only when they don't contradict the Koran, as they consider all scripture that disagrees with the Koran to be 'corrupted'. They also have the Hadith, which are the other writings of Muhammad. They use these to clarify things in the Koran, but they don't overrule it.

At least that is my understanding.

Dave Ellis said:

Fair enough. Again, morality and justification for laws are two separate topics. Just because something is immoral doesn't mean it's illegal. Likewise just because something is legal doesn't make it moral.

Making laws is largely a utilitarian exercise. The best explanation is John Rawls veil of ignorance idea. If you are not familiar with it, essentially you would be tasked with creating the laws for a society without knowing what place in that society you will hold.

For example, you wouldn't want to create a society like Nazi Germany, because you might wind up being one of the Jews in it. You wouldn't want a society like Saudi Arabia because you might wind up not being a Muslim in it. You wouldn't want a society like the United States, because you could wind up being transgendered, etc.

The result of blinding yourself to what role you play in that society will create a set of laws designed to be as equitable as possible to everyone, while putting reasonable restrictions in place that will safeguard as many people as possible.

If a law conforms to that method of thinking, I would call it a just one. If (for example) a law is designed to suppress a certain group of people, I would call it unjust.

Click to expand...

Thank you for expanding your position. I do understand what you're saying, and also Rawls' veil of ignorance principle, and appreciate his approach.

Dave Ellis said:

By definition, I would not have a right to life. That doesn't mean the stripping of my right to life is a just act though, as I explained above.

Click to expand...

OK. Thank you. Would you still feel that it were unjust if society were to conclude that taking or requiring your life were in society's best interest?

Dave Ellis said:

Interesting, so you yourself believe that society is capable of stripping someone's right to life.

Click to expand...

Not at all. I believe that a person is capable of stripping from himself his right to life by infringing upon another person's right to life without just cause (self defense, etc.).

TasteForTruth said:

Thank you for expanding your position. I do understand what you're saying, and also Rawls' veil of ignorance principle, and appreciate his approach.

Click to expand...

Not a problem

TasteForTruth said:

OK. Thank you. Would you still feel that it were unjust if society were to conclude that taking or requiring your life were in society's best interest?

Click to expand...

Depends on what justification they provide, it would have to meet an extremely high bar though. I can't think of a justifiable reason why it would be in societies best interest.

TasteForTruth said:

Not at all. I believe that a person is capable of stripping from himself his right to life by infringing upon another person's right to life without just cause (self defense, etc.).

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I buy that. You don't determine what rights you have, that's determined on a societal level. Furthermore, just because you violate someones rights does not automatically mean you forfeit yours. For example, if you break in to someones house, that doesn't mean that everyone is free to break into yours.

Dave Ellis said:

Depends on what justification they provide, it would have to meet an extremely high bar though. I can't think of a justifiable reason why it would be in societies best interest.

Click to expand...

A hypothetical could include satisfying the demands of some foreign power or terrorist group who had a credible claim and threat involving multiple nukes in major cities in your country; if your country surrenders you for death, they'll not detonate. Something like that.

Dave Ellis said:

I'm not sure I buy that. You don't determine what rights you have, that's determined on a societal level. Furthermore, just because you violate someones rights does not automatically mean you forfeit yours. For example, if you break in to someones house, that doesn't mean that everyone is free to break into yours.

Click to expand...

Well, let's hold off on this until later, as it deviates from me understanding your view.

stevil said:

OK, really?

I've never been a Christian, so don't really know some things that you might consider basic Christian knowledge.
I'm trying not to be antagonistic, and please don't read my basic questions as being sarcastic or baiting.

I understand there are a great many similarities between Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions.
Do they all read the Old Testament or do they read different versions of it?
Is the Torah, the Quran and the New Testament their successors to the old testament?

Click to expand...

The Hebrew Scriptures, called Tenach in Jewish circles and the Old Testament in Christian circles is foundational to all 3 religions; although the version used by Islam is somewhat different in many details.

So the Talmuds, New Testament and Koran are all based on that body of work, and it is from there that we get the definition of Murder being shedding innocent blood.

Dave-W said:

The Hebrew Scriptures, called Tenach in Jewish circles and the Old Testament in Christian circles is foundational to all 3 religions; although the version used by Islam is somewhat different in many details.

So the Talmuds, New Testament and Koran are all based on that body of work, and it is from there that we get the definition of Murder being shedding innocent blood.

Click to expand...

OK, thanks for that explanation.

TasteForTruth said:

A hypothetical could include satisfying the demands of some foreign power or terrorist group who had a credible claim and threat involving multiple nukes in major cities in your country; if your country surrenders you for death, they'll not detonate. Something like that.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't really call that a plausible scenario. What foreign power would nuke a country just because they didn't kill some random citizen that has nothing to do with international relations?

If this is to work, it would be best to use a scenario that would at least have a decent chance of actually happening in the real world.

jayem said:

Modern, Western Christianity has been liberalized. Largely by adopting values of the Enlightenment. But it wasn't always so. Both the RC and Protestant churches had been highly authoritarian in past times. There is still a small contingency that promotes a severe Biblical theonomy. Hopefully, Christian Reconstructionists, and their ilk will forever remain an insignificant crackpot fringe.

Click to expand...

I would argue the Enlightenment itself was a largely Christian movement in response to new learning about the world. Leibniz, for instance, was a devout Lutheran, Descartes was a faithful Catholic, and Immanuel Kant was a pietist. Even some of the later intellectuals that were critical of the Church still valued concepts that were nurtured within the Christian tradition. Victor Hugo comes to mind- he died as a freethinker deist, but you read a story like Les Miserables and you see that he had internalized Christian values such as grace.

Dave Ellis said:

I don't think it is. Even in the modern day it's the fundamentalists that are trying to withhold human rights. The opposition to gay marriage, trans rights such as serving in the military, etc, is heavily rooted in the religious right.

Click to expand...

This assumes the fundamentalist have the correct interpretation of Christianity. I don't abide by that notion. I believe fundamentalism is just as much a product of modernity as liberalism, and by focusing on self-styled fundamentals, they distort the religion.

My church actually filed an amicus brief opposing the Trump administration's support of discrimination against gays in Colorado, FWIW. We do not believe there is such a thing as a religious right to discriminate against anyone, because human dignity is fundamental to our religious identity.

Ireland was similar. When the church held more sway a couple decades ago the idea that gay marriage would be made legal was unthinkable. Once the church lost much of its power, those rights have finally been extended.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not an Irish Catholic so I don't have to defend that. I'm not a fan of Roman Catholic style Integralism, it's incompatible with my religion, as I explain below. And Ireland held onto that for so long mostly out of a national spirit of resentment towards the British, I believe, British had liberal religion so they had to do the opposite.

I can't think of a single situation in which a country has become more religious or the church has gained more political power and personal freedoms have increased. I can think of many examples where the church gaining power was met with widespread oppression of minority groups and non-believers in the dominant faith.

Click to expand...

I do not favor political power for my church, just the right to practice our religion in peace. Seeking political power is not the way we are supposed to do things. Luther was one of the first to argue the Church should be smaller and less powerful. Consequently we believe the Church should serve society, and not the other way around.

The Gospel is not of this world and it is too precious to be cheapened by politicization. So I very much disagree with Christians who do that.

Dave Ellis said:

I wouldn't really call that a plausible scenario. What foreign power would nuke a country just because they didn't kill some random citizen that has nothing to do with international relations?

If this is to work, it would be best to use a scenario that would at least have a decent chance of actually happening in the real world.

Click to expand...

I understand your point, but don't absolutely agree. Extreme examples afford us the opportunity to probe deeply our positions. It is often in that very process that we discover they can or cannot yield; that it is OK, or not, that they yield. Again, I am not here to trap, but to understand. Both our positions will lead where they will, and we may discover they they are more harmonious than we initially believed. Or not. I think you should address the hypothetical. We are not in a contest; neither of us has anything to lose by fully participating.

TasteForTruth said:

So, you do not believe that you, personally, have a right to live. Is that statement correct?

Click to expand...

No. Not correct.

TasteForTruth said:

I understand your point, but don't absolutely agree. Extreme examples afford us the opportunity to probe deeply our positions. It is often in that very process that we discover they can or cannot yield; that it is OK, or not, that they yield. Again, I am not here to trap, but to understand. Both our positions will lead where they will, and we may discover they they are more harmonious than we initially believed. Or not. I think you should address the hypothetical. We are not in a contest; neither of us has anything to lose by fully participating.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between an extreme example, and an example that's so unlikely it's virtually impossible.

For example, we could argue against using coal fired power plants because aliens don't like pollution and they could wipe out humanity over it. That's an extreme example, and it's so implausible that it's virtually an impossible scenario. Whatever conclusions we get from probing our positions in this area is virtually useless, as it would never happen anyway.

And either way, the act of nuking major cities is unjust regardless of whether you are killed or not. If society is coerced into killing an innocent citizen to prevent an unjust act doesn't make the killing a just one. The best you can say is that it's practical.

Dave Ellis said:

There's a difference between an extreme example, and an example that's so unlikely it's virtually impossible.

For example, we could argue against using coal fired power plants because aliens don't like pollution and they could wipe out humanity over it. That's an extreme example, and it's so implausible that it's virtually an impossible scenario. Whatever conclusions we get from probing our positions in this area is virtually useless, as it would never happen anyway.

And either way, the act of nuking major cities is unjust regardless of whether you are killed or not. If society is coerced into killing an innocent citizen to prevent an unjust act doesn't make the killing a just one. The best you can say is that it's practical.

Click to expand...

In spite of your resistance to using the scenario I proposed, you have weighed in on it anyway. I appreciate your willingness, and don't believe that your response is "useless." So, you do not believe that it would be "just" for a nation to comply with such a demand in the sacrificing of an innocent life, but you still have not addressed the primary question, which was, rephrased, "Does the innocent person whose life is being sought and/or offered without just cause—though the involuntary surrender of his life is considered by society to be 'practical'—have a right to live, in spite of the requirement of his life to save millions of others from death?"

TasteForTruth said:

In spite of your resistance to using the scenario I proposed, you have weighed in on it anyway. I appreciate your willingness, and don't believe that your response is "useless." So, you do not believe that it would be "just" for a nation to comply with such a demand in the sacrificing of an innocent life, but you still have not addressed the primary question, which was, rephrased, "Does the innocent person whose life is being sought and/or offered without just cause—though the involuntary surrender of his life is considered by society to be 'practical'—have a right to live, in spite of the requirement of his life to save millions of others from death?"

Click to expand...

If society determines that person doesn't have the right to live, then they don't have the right to live. And again, that would be an unjust decision on the part of that society to strip that persons right to life.

I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said "Vote as if your Rights depended on it."

If it has to be voted, on it is not a right; it is a privilege.

Dave Ellis said:

If society determines that person doesn't have the right to live, then they don't have the right to live. And again, that would be an unjust decision on the part of that society to strip that persons right to life.

Click to expand...

Thank you. So maybe the last thing I'm wanting to understand is what you believe the foundation of "justice" is. In a past post I believe you mentioned that what makes a law just, or not, is whether or not it is equitable to all in society. In this case, we're not talking about a law, but an act. So my next question is where does the idea come from that equity is required for a law or act to be "just"?

Dave-W said:

I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said "Vote as if your Rights depended on it."

If it has to be voted, on it is not a right; it is a privilege.

Click to expand...

I was going to give this a tick, but then I thought a bit more and now decide that I disagree with you.

I understand that you are highlighting that rights aren't merely arbitrary, not merely opinions or preferences. I agree with this.

First and foremost though, we must agree that we are talking from the perspective of ourselves. e.g. we aren't talking about the rights of ants or plants.
Next we need to define what "ourselves" means?

Do we mean our self, our family, our village, our city, our state, our country, people that look like us, or the entire human species?

So what tangible influence do I have with regards to defining human rights?
If I work for the UN then maybe as a global influencer I am suggesting what rights all "countries" should support for their citizens.
If I have no global influence then perhaps I can think globally, but act locally. I can behave towards other people I interact with in a way that is supportive of "human rights" and perhaps I can vote for a government who supports "human rights".

What would be a human right? Something that could be defined as highly important to all humans?
Perhaps access to:
- clean water and food
- health care
- a healthy dwelling
- education
- provide goods and services
- procure goods and services
- own assets
- participate in society free from discrimination
- find love and form a family
- have and care for my offspring
- etc

Would the above sound reasonable? Something that is universal to all humans?
So if we live in a capitalistic society some of these things come down to a free market so that people can choose to spend their money where they please.
But what if some people have no money? Do they lose their rights to these fundamental things?
Should poor people have access to clean water? to education? to health care? to a dwelling?, to marriage?
Does that mean my society should provide a safety net for those that can't afford things that are a human right?
In some countries, poor people live on the streets, they forage in rubbish bins for food, they don't go to doctors or hospitals, they don't go to school.

What about finding love and forming a family? In some countries a certain group of people are denied the right to marry, denied the right to love.

Some people think marriage for certain groups is something that should be voted on. Some people think healthcare and housing should be voted on. Some people think schooling should be voted on.
Does this mean these things aren't rights?


So Dave-W, I do kind of agree with you. I think the things we deem to be rights are things that we should not put to the people to vote on. It's not a majority rules situation.